I believe in racial and religious profiling, based on the opportunity cost of profiling unlikely terrorists. Finite resources + clear demographics of terrorists = opportunity cost when we profile... a white 80yo Western woman called Betty. People like her should be profiled way less than... a brown 25yo Arab man called Ahmed.
In this example you're not exactly comparing particularly like peoples. I'd say if you're going to go on about racial profiling in this way, you should compare a brown 25yo Arab man called Ahmed vs a white 25yo man called David.
Now that the parameters are set; who's more likely to commit a mass shooting in the USA?
While that question is specifically worded, perhaps you can see my intentions for phrasing it so. I concede your point about the 80yo woman - I think 80yo's full stop could arguable fall outside the scope of profiling - but why should a 25yo white male be profiled any less than a 25yo brown male?
Because we have statistics that show that brown males cause more terror attacks than white males.
Each time you fit into a particular demographic (one that commits more crime that their counterparts), it should shift you along the continuum of 'profiling priority'.
I'm not saying that all black people should be profiled. Just as I wouldn't make the claim for all men. It's a similar point. Men pose a much higher threat of being terrorists than women, and we should tailor our resources our profiling efforts to reflect this.
I provided statistics in the thread I referred to in the first comment of this chain. Page 4, post 7, in the 'isidewith...' thread. Feel free to have a look. I don't want to make it seem like this is pure unsupported conjecture.
Are you sure about that statistic? What are you classifying as a terror attack? Because of the 350+ mass shootings that have happened in the USA this year alone, I'd hazard a guess the majority of them were committed by white males.
I don't know about you, but I certainly view this as a terror attack.
In 2014 64% of all mass shootings were committed by young white males. That's an extraordinarily high amount, with black shooters coming in at 16%. In absolute terms white people commit more mass shootings than all other races combined.
Proportionally, the only race that lies out of proportion of their population representation are Asians - by your logic you should be 2.5 times more worried about an Asian male than any other race for committing a mass shooting.
You also didn't define what constitutes a terror attack in your post, you just stated that the majority of religious terror attacks are committed by Muslims. I'd say shooting up a Planned Parenthood because it doesn't conform to your religious beliefs is a terror attack. You didn't state how the game is being scored.
They were the homicide statistics for 2013. Let's back up a second here.
You're straw-manning the issue here. I want to concentrate on homicide, violent attacks, terror attacks, the WHOLE shabbang. Not just 'mass shootings'.
Second, the link is poor. Methodology101, always check the sample size. Citing a mere 72 mass shootings is not substantial, at all.
Even IF it was, then sure. I'm willing to go with whatever conclusion that the data bears out. But with good data. Not with the stuff that you're currently citing. If it turns out that 90% of males commit violent crimes, and 90% of the time they're white too? Sure. Let's profile white males more often than other demographics! The underlying question, is... Would that racist and sexist?
I'm not straw-manning the issue here. You cited violent crimes briefly, then transitioned to discussing Muslim terrorists. I wanted to ask how you're defining what an act of terrorism is - which you still haven't done - and gave a counterpoint about mass shootings, which I'm assuming wasn't included in your initial example of religious terrorist attacks.
Also 72 data points isn't unsubstantial at all, especially when their definition of "mass shooting" may fall outside of the one I used earlier. And sure, a nice round 100 would be good from a statistical perspective but anything above 50 can be used to draw meaningful conclusions. That's co: my economics statistical analysis course.
Tim, let's just take these articles at face value for a sec. Let's assume that the headlines arn't clickbait hyperbole, and that they're an accurate representation of the facts and figures.
It's comparing apples to oranges. Political motivations, with religious ones. Out of religious terror attacks, or fatalities in religious terror attacks, how many are Muslims responsible for?
Out of political terror attacks, how many are white males or republicans responsible for?
Those are better questions. But to conflate religious motivations with political, is a grave error. If 5% of terror attacks are religiously motivated, and 2.5% of all terror attacks are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, there's a HUGE problem with Islam here.
But these political terror attacks have very close, arguably intrinsic links to religion. Defining them as one and not the other isn't an accurate affair.
Can we bring this back on point? I said that even IF the data bore out your conclusions, then I would be willing to stand by them.
If it turns out that 90% of males commit violent crimes, and 90% of the time they're white too? Sure. Let's profile white males more often than other demographics! The underlying question, is... Would that racist and sexist?
We really need to do this somewhere else. Which is exactly why I wanted you to chime in, in the thread. So many points are being brought up and we're barely able to talk at one another. Stuff is getting missed, and I'm having to repeat myself now. Can we take this to the thread, or at least address that final point above?
You've answered my question by asking another question in an attempt to redirect the conversation. I asked about how the definition of terrorist attacks was being classified, and you take a tangential course on whether profiling white males more often is racist and sexist.
My initial point about mass shootings was made to specifically ask how and why terrorist attacks are being defined, and you still haven't addressed that yet.
Do you know why? Because that was the original talking point in the thread! If I ask a question, and you overlook/ignore it, and than ask me a question... how the actual f*ck do you figure that I'm the one attempting to redirect the conversation? Scroll up, and see where I originally asked you that question.
I couldn't give two xxxxx whether that was your original point. I'm asking us to stay on topic. As soon as we tackle one, we can move onto the next, that's absolutely fine. But you cite some of the worst statistics that I've seen, claim that they're actually pretty reliable, and then refuse to acknowledge that profiling based on THOSE statistics would be fair, non-racist or non-sexist?
Look at the first post in this thread, because THIS is what we're supposed to be talking about in the first place.
I implore you to take this to a thread and ask all the questions there. Or, Skype is a good alternative. Just some way that can foster a better conversation than this 420-character limit, where we reply past one another and miss/forget/ignore points and questions as we go.
Comments on Profile Post by TheDebatheist